GO Dinner & Debate 2010

On the evening of Monday 18th October, we held our fourth Dinner & Debate at Christie’s. The topic of the debate this year was “Beyond political correctness – does Board diversity really improve corporate decision-making?”.  We were delighted to welcome Mrs Moneypenny, columnist for the FT and businesswoman, and Dr Sarah Rutherford, a widely respected figure in the diversity field with over ten years’ experience of research and consultancy, as our key speakers. Anthony Hilton, Financial Editor of the Evening Standard, agreed again to chair proceedings.

We had a very enjoyable evening and our guests contributed to a lively debate before the dinner. Our thanks to all who joined us for the evening and made it such a success.

Mrs Moneypenny
Mrs Moneypenny is a former investment banker and has an MBA from the London Business School and a PhD from the University of Hong Kong. She is a visiting professor at Cass, City University Business School, and a trustee of a major educational charity. She is married to a wine merchant who plays a lot of golf, and has three children who she refers to as the Cost Centres.

Mrs M began writing for the Financial Times in 1999 while still based in Tokyo. Subsequently, she returned to the UK and bought into a small but profitable business in the West End of London, where she was the youngest and worst-groomed of four owner-directors. She later led a management buyout and is now the majority owner. She is the author of Mrs Moneypenny: Survival in the City (2003), and Mrs Moneypenny: Email from Tokyo, (2006). Her column appears every week in the FT Weekend Magazine.

Dr Sarah Rutherford
Dr Sarah Rutherford is a widely respected figure in the diversity field and has over ten years' experience of research and consultancy.
She has worked with many of the leading organisations on their diversity strategies. She combines deep academic knowledge with hands-on practical experience.
She has a strong business background, having been an investment analyst in an investment bank (Robert Fleming) and then a financial journalist on national publications (Sunday Times, London Standard). She was a non-executive director of bank Singer & Friedlander until its sale in 2005.
She has a M.Sc. in Sociology of Employment and Research Methods and a PhD in the Impact of Organisational Cultures on Women Managers.
She has talked about diversity on various programmes on the radio (Nice Work, Women's Hour), and is experienced in talking about diversity issues at the highest level. She has been a guest speaker at numerous conferences on diversity. She has undertaken two years' training as a group analyst and is a skilled facilitator.
Dr Rutherford is a Visiting Fellow of Cranfield University, School of Management.

This is an excerpt of Anthony Hilton’s column in the Evening Standard, commenting on the debate.

A case for taking quotas on board

A few years ago, Governance for Owners had its first dinner and debate in a church in Spitalfields. Last night, the organisation — which has made a business out of improving corporate performance through intelligent shareholder engagement — held this year’s event, this time in Christie’s West End auction rooms. The move from God to Mammon was, however, purely symbolic — GO remains firmly on the side of the angels.

Last night’s topic was boardroom diversity; political correctness aside, does boardroom diversity actually improve corporate decision-making? But it is a sign of how far opinions, or at least the opinions people are prepared to express publicly, have shifted that there was no serious objection to the principle of diversity.

Even FT columnist Mrs Moneypenny, who opposed the motion, was not against diversity, just against it being an end in itself. Her point was that board selection must be on the basis of talent and ability, not race or gender. Tokenism would do no one any good.

But the problem is that, however positive the thinking, there has been very little change in the reality of boardroom composition. It is still the preserve of white middle-aged men in suits, many of whom have been senior executives elsewhere. Indeed, the pace of change may be slower now than it was a decade ago.

A report just published in the US shows there has been no progress in the past five years in the numbers of women on corporate boards, where it is stuck around 15%. Change here is similarly glacial. So the big issue is whether it is time to insist on quotas as a way to force a change in behaviours. This is what they have done in Norway, where the law requires at least 40% female representation.

This might indeed be the next big debate. EU Commissioner Michel Barnier appears interested in the idea, It may also appeal to Lord Davies, the trade minister in the last government who is producing a government-commissioned report on why there are so few women in the boardroom. The UK in general may have no enthusiasm for quotas, but it may well be something it has to think about.

Anthony Hilton, Evening Standard, 19th October 2010